Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33649464›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Examining modifications of execution strategies during a continuous task.

Erez James Cohen, Kunlin Wei, Diego Minciacchi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Erez James CohenDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Physiological Sciences Section, University of Florence, Viale Morgagni 63, 50134, Florence, Italy.
Kunlin WeiSchool of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences and Beijing Key Laboratory of Behavior and Mental Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Diego MinciacchiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Physiological Sciences Section, University of Florence, Viale Morgagni 63, 50134, Florence, Italy. diego.minciacchi@unifi.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How strategies are formulated during a performance is an important aspect of motor control. Knowledge of the strategy employed in a task may help subjects achieve better performances, as it would help to evidence other possible strategies that could be used as well as help perfect a certain strategy. We sought to investigate how much of a performance is conditioned by the initial state and whether behavior throughout the performance is modified within a short timescale. In other words, we focus on the process of execution and not on the outcome. To this scope we used a repeated continuous circle tracing task. Performances were decomposed into different components (i.e., execution variables) whose combination is able to numerically determine movement outcome. By identifying execution variables of speed and duration, we created an execution space and a solution manifold (i.e., combinations of execution variables yielding zero discrepancy from the desired outcome) and divided the subjects according to their initial performance in that space into speed preference, duration preference, and no-preference groups. We demonstrated that specific strategies may be identified in a continuous task, and strategies remain relatively stable throughout the performance. Moreover, as performances remained stable, the initial location in the execution space can be used to determine the subject's strategy. Finally, contrary to other studies, we demonstrated that, in a continuous task, performances were associated with reduced exploration of the execution space.

Identifiers

PMID33649464
PMCPMC7921105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.